@webmind @pesco @rysiek @email@example.com @strypey
I bet many people wouldn't mind a government that does completely nothing.
A feature freeze of sorts.
No new law.
Everything keeps working as it was before.
Yeah, I know it wouldn't work long-term. But so often it seems that every time someone proposes a change to the law, someone takes it as an opportunity to inject their shitty article into it.
And they're usually the worst. Blocking marriage equality, gender equality regulations, environmental regulations, etc etc.
@Wolf480pl @pesco @webmind @ente @strypey yes, but *by definition* this preserves old regulation. Like marriage inequality, like freedom to polute. There is literally no good reason to have a party like that. This will no achieve anything.
What we need are parties that vote sane. Not obstructionists.
It will change the game.
The basic idea behind democracy is that to rule, a party needs support of the society.
Currently there's an anomaly that if the society doesn't support any party, then some party still gets to rule, even though the society doesn't support it.
What I propose is that if the society doesn't support any party, then NOBODY gets to rule.
This will change the incentives for parties, because they'll have to be better than nothing.
@Wolf480pl @pesco @webmind @ente @strypey what will change the incentives is changing the electoral system to Single Transferrable Vote:
Instead of coming up with hare-brained schemes involving obstructionism and blockchain, perhaps we should first do some research into actually viable solutions?..
I wasn't serious with the blockchain part. Sorry if that made you angry.
I know about STV, but it's pretty complicated, It'd be a big change to the electorial system, and would the whole thing harder to understand. OTOH, a "NO" party is simple, and doesn't require changes in the electorial system.
I'm not saying it'd solve all problems, or most of the problems. I'm just saying it's an idea worth investigating.
I've voted in STV elections for local govt back home, it really isn't that complicated. People who can't be bothered thinking it through still have the option of treating it like a FPP election, and just putting (1) next to their preferred candidate instead of a tick. You could even have a rule that a tick counts as a (1) for that candidate in case people get confused.
@strypey @rysiek @pesco @webmind @firstname.lastname@example.org
It's harder to implement a new system than to slightly adjust an existing system, especially that the "NO" party could be implemented without any change to the existing implementation of voting system.
By "hard to reason about" I mean, it is harder to predict how your votes will affect the results, harder to externally verify if the system functions correctly, and harder to predict how it'll behave as a part of a larger system.
Welcome to your niu world ! We are a cute and loving international community Ｏ(≧▽≦)Ｏ !